Fair enough.

You seem to struggle with the concept that people’s financials can change very rapidly from things outside their control.

Other than the engines potential for incomplete burning, leading to washing of cylinder walls. Or the potential for not being able to pull enough timing, again leading to excessive wear, rough running, etc.

Probably wouldn’t be any worse than using 87 with ethanol.....

Except all the ethanol still eating out their fuel system..........

They drive completely different than lesser models. Judging this off the lower models is really not giving it any justice.

87 octane without ethanol is better than 87 octane with ethanol.

False:

You don’t realize how oil companies work do you?

It’s a comfortable, quiet, efficient GT for long trips. It’s docile as a Camry when you drive it respectably.

Is $42/month more than they’d be spending without the higher octane fuel? I believe it is actually, roughly $42/month they wouldn’t spend otherwise.

The hit to fuel economy from less explosive fuel, combined with a higher price at the pump will definitely affect things

Run fine, maybe. Meanwhile it would get worse mileage in many cases.

See Haze’s response.

When they’re scraping bottom because they’re “stable” job just moved overseas and they’re stuck working PT to make ends meet that’s they’re fault?

You can sure.

Older cars simply won’t tune for higher octane, some actually get worse economy from higher octane fuel. It will be no benefit to them except higher prices at the pump.

They will never understand, I’m not worried.

1). I would argue these are far better with the auto.

You’ve clearly never driven one.